Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req resubmit

"Kinugasa Manabu" <kinugasa@cloud-scope.com> Tue, 12 October 2010 00:47 UTC

From: Kinugasa Manabu <kinugasa@cloud-scope.com>
To: MBONED@ietf.org
References: <20100930104311.W35733@zircon.juniper.net> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B0201C1F5A@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B0201C1F5A@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:48:37 +0900
Message-ID: <000901cb69a7$36df4d50$a49de7f0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: Actgx4Klae455jOxSo6StEKYVBZimgChs9fQAZVQsyA=
Content-Language: ja
Subject: Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req resubmit
Precedence: list

Hi Ron,

I send my opinion on your comments.

> Folks,
> 
> The WG chairs tell me that draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req has been 
> significantly revised and has passed WG last call.
> However, in my opinion, the WG last call was too quiet. 
> I would like to ask the following questions of as many WG participants 
> as I can get to respond:
> 
> 1) Have you read the draft since it was revised?

Yes, we our colleagues read the draft, and we thought to be able to agree to
the content of it.

> 2) Do you believe that the work falls within the WG charter? 
> Please substantiate.

We knew this draft have been discussed many years at mboned, 
and NTT guys have showed some experiment results on a content delivery
service. 
We believe the work falls within the WG charter.

> 3) If these requirements were published, do you think that there is 
> sufficient interest within the community to follow up?

We think this is sufficient interest within the community to follow up.

>                                                                           
> Ron

--
Kinu

Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req resubmit Ronald Bonica
Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req resubmit Kinugasa Manabu